Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1887-12-27

The companies 1urtner COntcnu ina
the present system OF car load rates
or something like it is under existing
circumstances necessity of gooc
railroad economy. The complainants
insist that it is not.
| Carload traffic is relatively eco
lnomical for tho railroads three ways
!. The direct terminal expense is
considerably less.
2. The proportion of paying to
dead weight can be made decidedly
larger.
3. 1t is habitually furnished under
such cond tons that it can be moved
with greater ease and regularity.
There is no question that these
things Justify some difference in treat
ment. But it is an exceedingly deli
cate and difficult matter to say how
far they justify the existing differ
ence. The first two grounds, OF econ
ony which are the most obvious ones,
! are probably not sufficient; the third
point, if admitted by the Commission
as bearing on the case, is much more
than sufficient. But there IS strong
doubt how far il will be admitted.
Taking the railroads OF the country
as whole the terminal expenses in
the narrower sense, according TO the
census of 1880, were about ten cents
per train mile; while the movement
expenses amounted to thirty cents per
train mile, without counting repairs
OF rolling stock. Only part, and
perhaps not q very large part, OF this
cost Of terminal handling would be
saved when goods were shipped by
car load. Tnis direct difference in
economy might justify a difference of
ten per cent. in rates, but it would
not justify the existing difference of
twenty or thirty per cent.
Nor can the difference be justified
by the superior economy OF ii ne and
space when goods are shipped by the
carload. On the east-bound traffic a
case may perhaps be made out on this
ground. But On the west-bound
traffic portion OF the car space will
be unused, no matter what be the
of comparative Indifference to the rail
roads whether they run train Of
thirty loaded and ten empty cars, or
of forty ears three-quarters loaded.
We are informed that, as matter of
fact, many of the west-bound goods
that are shipped at carload rates are
not forwarded in full ear loads; that
an allowance is made to the shipper
who furnishes the requisite quantity,
but that the railroads dispatch them
in half filed cars.
The real reason why railroads make
such low carload rates is this: The
The through traffic, for q variety OF
reasons, is more economical to handle
than the local traffic. Through traffic
In bulk is also more subject to compe-
tition from other agencies of transpor-
tation outside of the immediate con-
tro, OF the railroad associations. 1t is
precisely this traffic which is mainly
furnished ia carload lots. On the
other hand, the local traffic Of way
stations, which is much less
economical, and less subject to
foreign competition. is habitu tly fur
nished in parcels. Making allowance
for these facts, the carload traffic,
on the who'd, is very much cheaper
than the parcels traffic, and the pres
ent system OF difference in charge,
while it may not be justified by tho |
saving on any particular shipment, is,
from the point OF view OF the railroad |
more than justified by the |
general difference in economy between
the two kinds Of traffic. The present |
system may be unjust to the through
shipper who sends parcels, or may do
more than justice to the local shipper
who sends car loaks. But, looking
at the two kinds of traffic as q whole,
there is no general unfairness.
But will the Commission admit this
point of view TO be proper one? 1t
is an open and palpable evasion of the
clause. BY this clause the
railroads are forbidden TO give the
through traffic certain advantages over
The local traffic to or from intermedi-
ate points. By the carload rate sys-
tenn they continue to do it without
coming in conflict with the letter of
The law in the fourth section.
At first sight it seems highly inn
probable that this would be allowed,
but there are on record utterances on
The part of the Commission which
give much encouragement to the adj
gocates of the existing system. The
most important of these are in Bos-
on & Albany, VS.. Boston d Lowell q.
Com. Rep, $50, and else
whem). In this case the Commits
sioners say that no injustice is done to
.he local traffic by taking through
traffic at very low rates, pro-
vided by doing SO it neither makes
the local traffic more expensive
nor otherwise incommodes it. And
they imply that their decision in that
case, forbidding the lower rates for
the long-haul traffic, was made on &C.
count of the terms of the law and not
On account OF equity or OF what would
De for the interest Of the parties con-
,erned. Now, the car load rate case
$ one III which the practice COM
blamed OF does not directly violate
he terms of the act. The Commits
ioners, therefore, have room for
hose considerations CT equity which
n the Boston and Lowell case were
excluded. |;
OF all the methods of evading the
absolute requirements OF the short s
,aul clause this is the least objection
.ble. 1t has been found the ouly |
means OF avoiding underhand favors
o large concerns. 1t has been adopt
I'd bv the state railroads of Germany,
md has been carried further than
With us. If the United States gov
is opposed to the existence
If distributing centers as such, car
Dad rates must be abandoned at
whatever cost. But, unless we are